Sunday, 28 February 2010

The constant media hounding of Jonathan Ross eventually led to him quitting the BBC. Having claimed his scalp, they're now going after his wife for her involvement in the upcoming action film Kick-Ass.

One: Goldman is only a co-writer of the screenplay. The other co-writer, Matthew Vaughn, is also the film's director - yet he is hardly mentioned in either story.

Two: the film is based on a comic book by Mark Millar. He invented the character of Hit-Girl, the foul-mouthed, eleven-year-old assassin, but the Mail doesn't even bother to mention him.

So references to 'Goldman's film' and her 'spawning' the character aren't exactly accurate.

As for the so-called 'outrage', it's as mythical as you might expect. The New York Times published an article about the film's red band trailers (ones that have swearing and violence in), based on the concerns of one person, who writes her reviews under the title Movie Mom.

Both articles quote Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at Kent University, but he seems to be making a generic point about about movie violence and doesn't mention Goldman at all.

So a bit of manufactured outrage used to attack another member of the Ross family. What a surprise.

But on reading the Mail's version, the resemblance to the Sunday Times' article is too strong to be coincidental. As the Mail article says Furedi'told the Sunday Times' his view, it's reasonable to assume the broadsheet article must have existed first.

I emailed Woodall about the claim. She said they had used her work without attribution and confirmed that she had written an email to the Mail about their 'strikingly similar' story, but which they had ignored. She also sent me a copy of her email to them.

Here's a section from Woodall's article:

And from the Mail's version:

And with these articles following on from the claims made against the Mail's Chris Johnson for plagiarism, is anyone going to call the Mail and its editor, to account?

Next time you introduce yourself or sign your name, spare a thought for Barb Dwyer and Paige Turner.They are among those honoured with having the most bizarre and embarrassing names in Britain, according to a survey.Researchers spent a month scouring the UK's online phone records to find those for whom meeting new people or showing their credit card in a shop is likely to be an ordeal.

It goes on to quote Stan Still, who says:

'My name has been a blooming millstone around my neck my entire life. When I was in the RAF my commanding officer used to shout "Stan Still, get a move on!" and roll about laughing. It got hugely boring after a while.'

Perhaps their parents had a wicked sense of humour.But for the children saddled with a comical name, the joke can wear a little thin.Stan Still, 76, said his name 'has been a blooming millstone around my neck my entire life'...Mr Still, a former RAF man from Cirencester, Gloucestershire, said yesterday: 'When I was in the RAF my commanding officer used to shout, "Stan Still, get a move on" and roll about laughing. It got hugely boring after a while.'

Hugely boring indeed.

So have the hacks at the Mail been looking through old papers for noteworthy anniversaries and thought this story was good enough to use again?

Who knows. But what we do know is that these stories are definitely churnalism.

Next time you sign your name spare a thought for Justin Case, Barb Dwyer and Anna Sasin.The incredibly unfortunate names emerged in our study of the most bizarre names in Britain today.

And the Mail's 2010 article begins:

Next time you introduce yourself or sign your name, spare a thought for Barb Dwyer and Paige Turner.They are among those honoured with having the most bizarre and embarrassing names in Britain, according to a survey.

Hmm. The press release:

When the parents of some of those people mentioned named their children, many probably didn’t even realise the implications at the time.

There must be tremendous embarrassment every time they have to introduce themselves to anyone, especially to a crowd. Even their teachers must have had to hold back their smiles sometimes.

On the positive side, anyone wanting to become well-known would have an added advantage… No-one would forget a name such as Justin Case, would they?Parents really do need to think carefully though when choosing names for their children.

The Mail in 2009:

A spokesman for www.thebabywebsite.com, which compiled the list, said: 'When the parents of some of those people mentioned named their children, many probably didn't even realise the implications at the time.'There must be tremendous embarrassment every time they have to introduce themselves. Even their teachers must have had to hold back their smiles sometimes.'On the positive side, anyone wanting to become well known would have an added advantage. No one would forget a name such as Justin Case, would they?'

The Mail in 2010:

A spokesman said: 'There must be tremendous embarrassment every time they have to introduce themselves to anyone, especially to a crowd.'Even their teachers must have had to hold back their smiles sometimes. Parents really do need to think carefully when choosing names for their children.'

An anonymous spokesman who doesn't really exist, but is used to regurgitate whole chunks of a press release? Imagine that.

Although the press release doesn't include the Stan Still story, they borrowed (ahem) that from the BBC website.

So not only is this classic churnalism, but it's reheating a year-old press release that they actually covered a year ago and which has no 'new' info in at all.

What was that about 'refuting that charge' of churnalism again, Mr Dacre?

In the midst of the claims about Gordon Brown's temper, Popper phoned LBC claiming to have first hand evidence of the PM's anger.

While touring a factory where Popper claimed to work, Brown received a phone call which upset him. Soon after:

...he threw a tangerine which he had, and it hit a machine, the actual lamination machine, and the actual fruit got stuck in the machine and clogged the whole machine, the whole machine broke down because of the peel, and it was very embarrassing, we had to sort of stop the tour and he got even more angry and he called the person that gave him the tangerine a citric idiot and shouted.

'Citric idiot'? Did that, and the story as a whole, not ring any alarm bells?

But of course, the allegation - however unbelievable - was what sections of the press wanted to believe in the maelstrom of accusations about whether Brown was a bully.

We further recommend that there should be lay members on the Code Committee, and that one of those lay members should be Chairman of that Committee.

Absolutely. However, there is a shocking quote in the report from Dacre. He told the Committee:

"It is a matter of huge shame if an editor has an adjudication against him; it is a matter of shame for him and his paper. That is why self-regulation is the most potent form of regulation, and we buy into it. We do not want to be shamed."

Firstly: bollocks. Secondly: Dacre and the Mail have shame?

The MPs added that lay members should be a majority on the decision-making Commission, which should also include journalists, rather than just editors:

We recommend that the membership of the PCC should be rebalanced to give the lay members a two thirds majority, making it absolutely clear that the PCC is not overly influenced by the press.

This, the Committee says, would:

enhance the credibility of the PCC to the outside world.

Which is, of course, urgently needed. The MPs add:

However for confidence to be maintained, the industry regulator must actually effectively regulate, not just mediate. The powers of the PCC must be enhanced, as it is toothless compared to other regulators.

It's all pretty damning about the PCC, but things will only improve if these changes are implemented to give the regulator those much-needed teeth.

It was also highly critical of the Daily Express, which several years ago refused to pay its subscriptions to the self-regulatory system. The MPs called this action:

Evidence we have seen makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the World, bar Clive Goodman, knew about the phone-hacking....[which] went to the heart of the British establishment, in which police, military royals and government ministers were hacked on a near industrial scale.

Moreover, the MPs are brutal in their judgements about the News of the World and News International employees who came before them:

Throughout our inquiry, too, we have been struck by the collective amnesia afflicting witnesses from the News of the World.

And:

Throughout we have repeatedly encountered an unwillingness to provide the detailed information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall, and deliberate obfuscation. We strongly condemn this behaviour which reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred.

Ouch.

For a clear example of this amnesia, look through the oral evidence and the exchanges between Philip Davies MP, current News of the World Editor Colin Myler and Tom Crone, the Legal Manager at News Group Newspapers (Q.1411-1418).

Davies was trying to find out who authorised the payments to Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, the bin-rummager who did the phone-hacking, which was paid after their release from prison. As if they was being paid to shut up, or something...

Q1416 Philip Davies: Just while we are on the theme, has any payment been subsequently made to Clive Goodman?

Mr Crone: I am certainly not aware of it.

Mr Myler: Again, likewise, I am not aware of any payment.

Q1417 Philip Davies: If a payment had been made, would you be aware of it?

Mr Crone: Not necessarily. Mr Kuttner would.

Q1418 Philip Davies: So this is a question for Mr Kuttner?

Mr Crone: I would say so.

And when Stuart Kuttner, the News of the World's Managing Editor, came before the Committee later that day:

Q1578 Philip Davies: We are obviously not going to make any further headway there. Have you made any payments to either Glenn Mulcaire or Clive Goodman since they were convicted of their offence?

Mr Kuttner: So far as I know agreements were made with them. I have no details at all of the substance of those agreements and so I cannot go beyond that.

Q1579 Philip Davies: Could you tell us who can because when I asked Mr Crone the same question he seemed to think that you were the person to ask.

Mr Kuttner: Well, in which case that is simply not so.

So Crone said Kuttner would know. Kuttner said he didn't know and he didn't know who would know.

Of course, the report did include many pages of insight and recommendations on privacy, libel and the McCann case.

But because the MPs dared take on the Sun's sister paper, its work was deemed 'worthless'. How grown up.

More astonishing was the reaction of Sky, which is in the same Murdoch stable as the News of the World, and which tried to pretend nothing had happened.

Here's the BBC's teletext news headlines this morning:

Second story. And on Sky Text it was here:

Oh rather, wasn't here. Still at least Sky News had it prominently on their website:

Oh no, it wasn't in their top 15 stories by early afternoon. Surely they wouldn't just bury it below some photo gallery of a pop star and a footballer:

Ah they would.

And even then it doesn't concentrate on the libel recommendations, or the reform of the PCC or the McCanns, that the Sun was complaining about. No, they've made it deliberately party political by referring to it in terms of 'Cam's man', as former editor Andy Coulson now works for David Cameron.

And on Tuesday night, during the Sky News press review, the News International line was already clear. They were faced with this:

What to do? Journalist Mark Seddon began to talk about the inquiry and the claims against the News of the World. Sat next to him was a journalist from the Times (also owned by News International), who butted in to say the phone-hacking had been looked at over and over and it's a non-story now.

Well, if the News International people would tell the truth for once, there wouldn't need to be constant enquiries into the sordid affair.

But at this point Anna Botting, the Sky News presenter, spoke over everyone to dismiss this whole story as a 'vendetta' from a 'left-leaning' newspaper which was aimed at Andy Coulson solely because he now works for the Tories. And she made clear that was the end of that discussion. It was dreadful.

And it clearly highlights the dangers of too much media being in the hands of too few people. The biggest selling daily newspaper and one of the two main TV news channels are all owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the News of the World.

And when not claiming some mythical political plot (the Chair of the Committee, incidentally, is a Conservative MP), they have decided the stick their fingers in the ears, shut their eyes and shout 'la la la', instead of telling their viewers about some important proposals to improve the press in this country.

The Guardian reports the Mail has done a short article, mostly avoiding the phone-hacking claims. The Telegraph has written more in general, but ignored the phone-hacking stuff. The Independent has given lots of coverage to News International's pathetic sound and fury.

So today we've seen parts of the media refusing to engage in a debate or admit to their own failings, while other parts try to intimidate and smear anyone who dares criticise.

So only one nomination for Richard Desmond's dreadful rags in four years.

And yet the Express continues to call itself the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' on its masthead every day. Its circulation is collapsing, it serves up a daily diet of hate and lies and the complete lack of any nominations in these awards means it becomes increasingly hard to understand how they are allowed to make this obviously bogus claim.

But best of all, the complete failure of any of the nasty columnists at the Mail to get a single mention. No Littlejohn. No Moir. No Platell. No Melanie Phillips. No Liz Jones. No Allison Pearson.

Wonderful.

Not quite so wonderful is the somewhat surprising nomination for the Mail's 'Science' Editor Michael Hanlon in the 'Specialist journalist' category. This is the man who once wrote:

one soon forgets that zombies, so far, exist only in the imagination.

Does one?

Even worse is the inclusion of Kelvin MacKenzie on the Columnist shortlist. MacKenzie is so highly valued by the Sun - despite his lies about Hillsborough - that they don't put his columns on their website.

So why wasn't he fired on the spot? It seems there is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us.

And when he says 'them' we can safely assume he's not talking about bus drivers.

No, he's talking about Muslims who, he seems to be admitting, aren't really meant to be reading the Sun. They're not one of 'us'. Such language if often used by right-wing tabloids and serves only to divide people, to build barriers, to cause tension.

It's hugely depressing to see newspapers talk of 'them and us' in this way. And it's equally depressing that such talk gets rewarded with award nominations.

The published research did not investigate the effect of rhubarb extracts (or polyphenols) on cancer cells or human health in general. The study only looked at how the concentrations of these chemicals in rhubarb were affected by different cooking methods.

And:

the study is limited by the fact that the researchers did not publish any statistical analysis of their results. This means it is not possible to say the differences they observed with different cooking times and methods did not arise by chance.

They found fumes from steak pan-fried on a gas flame contained more cancer-causing particles than those from an electric hob.

Scientists believe hotter gas flames release more harmful chemicals from oil in the cooking process and warn that chefs may be particularly at risk.

'Hotter gas flames'? Does that even make sense? Surely it depends on the temperature rather than what's created the flame.

Back the NHS for another rebuttal:

Although The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail stated that the amounts of the chemicals produced during cooking were within safety limits, this fact was not adequately emphasised in their reports and their coverage tended to sensationalise the story.

This research looked at the chemical composition of cooking fumes. It did not look at the health consequences of exposure to the chemicals produced by cooking, as could be assumed from reading the media reports.

And:

This study did not directly measure the health effects of cooking fumes, and overall it does not provide evidence that exposure to the fumes from cooking steak is bad for your health.

...even if [John] Terry had been caught having sex with a Cabbage Patch Doll in the window of Hamleys, he'd still be a better role model than any tabloid newspaper.

And:

Step out of line and the press will encircle and kick you. And kick you and kick you and kick you until you beg for forgiveness. At which point, if you're lucky, they'll chortle and sneer and move on. They must be frightfully proud.

Monday, 22 February 2010

Among the very many offensive things the Express has ever written, suggesting 'we' all agree with them on immigration is right up there.

If, however, the 'we' is the Express, then maybe 'Labour' would have a point. If they'd said any such thing. But they haven't. Indeed, they specifically avoided saying it.

The paper illustrates the article with a picture of some women in niqabs because that's the impression the Express wants to give about immigration.

The story is back to the so-called immigration plot and the draft (and all this stuff was only in the draft) document that has resulted in so much coverage. None of this actually made it through to the final version.

you could say it wasn't included because it's a big secret, and it was all a massive plot by Labour. Or you could say it wasn't included because it was rejected. Which one do you think the Mail and Express have gone for?

Labour dismissed the British public’s widespread opposition to mass immigration as 'racism'...

But ministers were urged to ignore voters' 'racist' views...

But demonstrating thinly disguised contempt for much of the British public, the document said that this opposition was linked to racist attitudes.

So what did the draft document actually say? From the Mail:

'Recent research shows that anti-immigrant sentiment is closely correlated with racism rather than economic motives,' the authors wrote.

'Education and people's personal exposure to migrants make them less likely to be anti-migrant.

'The most negative attitudes are found among those who have relatively little direct contact with migrants, but see them as a threat.'

Which is not 'Labour' calling everyone a racist. It is the authors - possibly civil servants - quoting 'research' which suggests there is a link between anti-immigrant views and racism. But it does not say everyone who expresses a concern about immigration is a racist.

As the Express claims on the front page.

And look again at that last sentence:

'The most negative attitudes are found among those who have relatively little direct contact with migrants, but see them as a threat.'

Sunday, 21 February 2010

Thanks to newly revealed documents, we learn it was a deliberate act to make the country more multi-cultural (and thus more likely to vote Labour).

Platell complaining about immigrants coming here to affect the outcome of elections? Seems odd, given she's an immigrant from Australia who was an advisor to William Hague and worked to get the Conservatives elected in 2001.

But you don't really go to Platell for common sense or intellectual rigour.

A survey purports to show that many more people would vote in a General Election if they could do so on Twitter. In a civilised democracy, the idiots who use Twitter should be banned from voting altogether.

Yes, because everyone knows that the mark of civilised democracies is that they arbitrarily ban thousands of people from voting for no reason whatsoever.

Never mind that people such as Oscar-nominated Thick of It creator Armando Iannucci uses Twitter. Let's not celebrate his achievements. Let's call him an insane idiot who should be disenfranchised instead.

Still, good job the newspaper Platell writes her drivel for is above all this Twitter nonsense.

And to see exactly how much they hate it, go to their Twitter feed at @mailonline.

Some have seen a conspiracy in the fact that Mail Editor Paul Dacre chairs the Code of Practice Committee, while Mail on Sunday Editor Peter Wright sits on the decision-making Commission.

But there is no conspiracy: the PCC are always this useless and ineffectual.

Essentially, the PCC have said that to rule against Moir and the Mail would have meant they were acting against freedom of speech and:

This would be a slide towards censorship, which the Commission could not endorse.

This is a bit of a red herring. To censure a journalist for writing lies is not censorship. It's what effective regulation should do.

They also repeat that as this was a columnist's opinion piece, there is more leeway on what can be said. Indeed, it seems at times that the PCC believes a columnist can say just about anything and, as it is an opinion piece, it's beyond criticism.

That doesn't fully apply in this case. After all, one of Moir's main themes was that this death was not 'natural'. This is not about interpretation of facts. This is whether something is correct or it isn't. And when Moir wrote:

healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again

The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information

Hmm.

It's worth looking at some of the other issues raised by the PCC's lengthy adjudication.

Clause 5 of the Code covers intrusion into grief and says publication of articles should be 'handled sensitively'. Moir's vicious article was published the day before Gately's funeral. Her follow-up column apologised for this (and only for this):

I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.

Yet the PCC chooses not to rule against Moir on this point, even though she admitted it was 'insensitive' and the Code says handling must be 'sensitive'. It is decisions such as that that make people scratch their heads about how the PCC works.

But, interestingly, the PCC do include some criticism, if rather veiled, of Paul Dacre:

The timing of the piece was questionable to say the least, and the Commission considered that the newspaper's editorial judgement in this regard could be subject to legitimate criticism.

Not that the PCC is going to rule against the Mail because of that, it's just going to point out criticism of them for the timing is 'legitimate'.

No wonder Editors do not want the PCC to change.

Paul Dacre is Chair of the Code of Practice Committee. His is the most complained about newspaper, he's responsible for the most complained about single article and has now been criticised for his 'editorial judgement'. And yet he is still considered suitable to make the rules that journalists have to abide by. That simply isn't acceptable.

In its defence, the Mail said:

The record number of complaints was an internet phenomenon 'whipped up in a few hours on the social networks of Facebook and Twitter' and had to be kept in perspective.

This from the paper that 'whipped up' the entire Sachsgate furore. And the difference is stark: at least in the Moir case, people could - and did - read the article. Only a few of the complainants about the Sachsgate broadcast actually heard the show.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

When discussing Clause 12, which covers discrimination, the PCC say:

The question of whether the article was homophobic or discriminatory to gay people in general did not fall under the remit of the Code.

This seems very surprising, and presumably applies to all articles, not just this one.

But this appears to be a problem not with the Code (the discrimination clause is actually very good) but the narrow interpretation of it by the PCC. Do they really think judging whether an article is homophobic is not within their remit?

They go on to say:

The columnist had not used pejorative synonyms for the word 'homosexual' at any point.

This clearly isn't good enough. Just because a newspaper or columnist doesn't use some crass slang insult doesn't mean it's not being homophobic or discriminatory. Adopting arguments such as this one make the PCC look as if they are doing everything possible to avoid ruling against the papers.

The PCC add:

it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language in the article.

Really? So when she said Gately:

could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk

that was nothing to do with his sexuality? (She said a few days later he was 'talented'). And nor was:

the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle.

Nor this:

Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. Of course, in many cases this may be true.

That was when she was talking about civil partnerships where she claimed Gately's death struck

another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

This followed on from her mention of the entirely unrelated case of Kevin McGee. The Mail in their defence said this was:

relevant comment

The PCC ruled the linking of these was:

illogical.

They are right about that. But what really annoyed people was the suggestion that this said something about civil partnerships. She later denied this, but it was too late. And the PCC say her view on this, although 'illogical' was not inaccurate or misleading.

But in what way was she right in what she said about civil partnerships?

Moreover, she never said that the antics of Tiger Woods or John Terry (and she wrote about both) struck a blow for the myth of happy-ever-after heterosexual partnerships. Why not?

In sum, the PCC said it was 'uncomfortable' with Moir's 'distasteful' 'compendium of speculations', it was at times 'illogical' and the timing was 'questionable'.

A Department of Work and Pensions spokeswoman denied Mrs Hilling was stopped from using the word 'junior' in the ad and said Job Centre Plus's advisers simply give employers advice on wording their ad to attract the most applicants.

A spokesman said: 'Our advisers will help employers get as many applicants for their jobs as possible.

'Some people may be put off applying if they think a job is only aimed at young people, so we'll advise on wording adverts to help businesses get the best person for them.'

Oh. But at least the Mail mentioned the name of the salon, the name of the owner's husband's salon and included a picture of the former, so running off to the papers ensured they got some free publicity out of this.

Which, given the amount of coverage the earlier story got, may have been the point.

It is odd that every Page 3 girl seems to agree with the Sun on every issue going. Here, Rhian is clearly coming out against the euro. When the Sun switched allegiance to the Conservatives back in October 2009, Keeley declared 'her' support for David Cameron too.